Dismissed

Abhiman@Abhimanyu Krishna Pawar v. Manik Sahebrao Lamkane

Bombay HC30 Jan 2013WP/876/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the judgment dismissing his appeal against an injunction granted to the respondent who holds a registered sale deed. The High Court held that mere registration does not mandate injunction when actual possession is disputed, declining to interfere under Article 227 as the civil court correctly relied on the title deed.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Abhiman@Abhimanyu Krishna Pawar Vs Manik Sahebrao Lamkane — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 W.P. 876.2013

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 876 OF 2013

¶5

Abhiman @ Abhimanyu Krishna Pawar V/s Manik Sahebrao Lamkane

¶6

Office Notes,Office	Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of
Coram,appearances,	................................
Court's orders or	CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.
directions and
Registrar's orders	DATE : 30/01/2013.

¶7

Mr. S.A.Wakure, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶8

PER COURT :

¶9

The respondent/plaintiff had filed Suit for injunction. The present petitioner/defendant also filed counter claim for injunction. The plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his possession. The said application is allowed. The defendant filed Appeal before the District Court. The District Court dismissed the Appeal. The defendant has assailed the said Judgment in the present Writ Petition.

¶10

Mr. Wakure, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only because the registered sale deed is in favour of the plaintiff, the Court has clamped injunction against the defendant.

¶11

2 W.P. 876.2013

¶12

There is a Certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat showing the present defendant in occupation of the suit house. Even the affidavits are filed of the witnesses, who support the contention of the defendant of occupying the suit house. Apart from the suit house, the defendant does not possess any other house. The learned counsel submits that the case put-forth by the petitioner has not been considered by the Courts. The petitioner is in possession of the suit property pursuant to the oral agreement executed by plaintiff in favour of the defendant. According to the learned counsel, the actual possession ought to have been considered. The Suit has been filed by the plaintiff only after the defendant had filed police complaint against the plaintiff.

¶13

With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the orders.

¶14

The document of ownership stands in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property pursuant to the registered sale deed executed in his favour in the year 1987. The defendant claims on the basis of oral agreement of the year 1992. The revenue record stands in favour of the plaintiff. Both the Courts have considered the said aspect and have arrived at the plausible conclusion.

¶15

In view of the above, no case for interference is made out in

¶16

3 W.P. 876.2013

¶17

the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

6. The Writ Petition as such is dismissed. No costs.

¶19

Needless to state, the observations made at this stage are only prima facie in nature and the trial Court shall decide the Suit on the basis of the evidence adduced dehors the observations made herein.

¶20

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶21

KNP/W.P. 876.2013

Abhiman@Abhimanyu Krishna Pawar v. Manik Sahebrao Lamkane

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhiman@Abhimanyu Krishna Pawar v. Manik Sahebrao Lamkane

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Mah and Anr. Vs M/S New Maharashtra Sand Suppliers

Manohar S/Osridhar Bhat Died through Lrs Kamalkar Vs Chandrabai S/O Shamlal Agrawal

Akbarshah Hussenshah and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Rajendra Devidas Kate Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Digambar Ramkrushna Patil Vs Shrawan Ramchandra Mahajan and Ors.

Dattatrya Eakanath Shinde, Died Thr. L.Rs. Babasaibh and Ors. Vs Rajaram Bhagwat Raut and Ors.